THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff's Complaint, filed under 15 U.S.C. § 1681, (Doc. No. 1), and on Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, (Doc. No. 2).

I. BACKGROUND

In this action, the pro se Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Jon Barry & Associates, d/b/a Paragon Recovery, LLC, a debt collector, has violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA" or "the Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 1962 et seq. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant furnished false information to credit reporting agencies, in violation of Section 1681s-2(a) of the Act, and further failed to respond properly upon receiving notice of a dispute from Plaintiff, in violation of Section 1681s-2(b) of the Act.

The Court first addresses Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. In Plaintiff's sworn application, she reports that she receives monthly gross pay of $6800.00, with a net income of $5200.0. (Doc. No. 2 at 1). She also reports monthly expenses totaling $4925.00. Of her monthly expenses, Plaintiff pays $2905.00 for loans, $630.00 in garnishment to " N.C. State, " and $150.00 to an attorney. She reports monthly household expenses of $550.00 for utilities, $235.00 for life insurance, $336.00 for health insurance, and $199.00 for cell phone expenses. Plaintiff states that she has $25.00 in a checking or savings account. The Court finds that, based on the evidence presented and given that Plaintiff's monthly expenses are almost equal to her net monthly income, the Court will grant Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must review the Complaint to determine whether it is subject to dismissal on the grounds that it is "frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In its frivolity review, this Court must determine whether the Complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional scenarios. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). Furthermore, a pro se complaint must be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the liberal construction requirement will not permit a district court to ignore a clear failure to allege facts in his Complaint which set forth a claim that is cognizable under federal law. Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).

For the reasons stated herein, this action is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:

1. This action is dismissed with prejudice.

2. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, (Doc. No. 2), is GRANTED for the limited purpose of this ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.